Is this racist

Rev. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr was the lead activist for the civil rights movement and the EEO laws for DEI in the USA were written as a direct result of his activism and success. To paraphrase a quote from him to imply he would not have supported DEI is a disgusting perversion of history and an insult to his memory and sacrifice. He was assassinated while fighting for DEI to be put into law.

Well that's reassuring. Although I am sure there are places and examples of it being well run and places and examples where it was poorly run. Could vary across states, regions, employment sectors, decades etc.

there are people who have a head start in life from birth, and that it is not wrong or discriminatory

In your example, it’s quite clearly discriminating against someone based on the school they went to. It’s blatant discrimination. It completely fits the definition of discrimination, you could say you think discrimination is acceptable for your social engineering aims but you can’t say it’s not discrimination.

DEI = Diversity, Equality and Inclusion.
The cartoon uses symbolic imagery to convey concepts that cover all areas of diversity- race, religion, nationality, disability, sex, sexual orientation, age and gender identity.

It is an old cartoon, and if you can think of a better way to put the principles of DEI into one coherent image I’d love to see it.

You haven't read that post properly.

If it's taking 3 years to get a black person on the board, it means that in the interim, white people will join the board. And after that black person joins the board, more white people will also join the board.

This is about providing mentoring, training and support to bring a specific, underrepresented group up to a level playing field where they can compete for these posts. Which will benefit the company financially, as all the evidence shows.

However, there are people on this thread who are deliberately choosing to misunderstand how it works.

Ive got to be honest, I don’t think you’re actually going to try to engage in this conversation. It has a lot of nuance and your short presumptive sound bites don’t add anything.

the issue with DEi is if people aren’t open to learn, they won’t. It can continue without you though, i don’t imagine you ever would’ve added anything anyway

It’s racist that the board happens to be all white but not racist if only black people can access a leadership program?

Interesting point of view, but I disagree. In my opinion, they can’t get rid of these divisive schemes fast enough,

No it isn't unless you think tall.people are better than short people.
It is saying that some people are born with more opportunities and privileges than other people. The tall person and the short person are just as able as each other but the short person needs some support to level the playing field.

I hear what you’re saying.

The picture obviously isn’t as clear as it’s mean to be to depict social equality.

im use to the version that depict it with disability which may help you see it from its true intention which may not translate into race.

So you have the “small” person
as Someone in a wheelchair. It isn’t meant to depict them as “lesser”. It’s a demonstration of a disability.
If you out equal boxes in front of a fence the person in the wheelchair still can’t see over the fence. However oh also shows where equality fails.

A person in a wheelchair can’t access a box. They need a ramp, they need the ability to get to the fence, somewhere to park to be able to get out of their vehicle in the wheelchair etc.

My ds is a wheelchair user and we see the picture as a good representation of barriers individuals face in life and he doesn’t see the fact the wheelchair user is effectively the smallest as him being down as lesser .

The model was designed to show that it’s about looking at what someone needs as an individual and giving them the opportunities to experience things equally by removing those barriers.

in the image shown here it’s about showing that the small person has no control over their height and therefore what they need individually isn’t equal to what others may need (or not for the tall person) to access something (in that case looking over the fence).

But if people aren’t seeing the image for what it was designed to show there is always a discussion to be had about how better to demonstrate the point.

You were not told accurately. (Lived in USA for over 20yrs and have direct experience with EEO programs) EEO= Equal Employment Opportunity which is DEI for employers.

IIRC the US supreme court changed the law to stop US colleges using race as a deciding factor in admissions a few years ago. One of the key arguments was that these DEI policies were unfairly penalising Asian American students. Not sure how valid an issue that was or whether it was decisive in the case.

We have that here in universities too. It's called 'contextual offers' - it isn't based on ethnicity though, it's based on population data around participation in higher education. What tends to happen is that students from state schools who don't have a slew of A* grades get offered university places they wouldn't otherwise have had.

And most of them outperform their privately educated privileged peers. It would be so helpful if those opposed to these initiatives would accept that actually, there are people who have a head start in life from birth, and that it is not wrong or discriminatory to provide extra support to those who have not.

But that isn't EDI policy - quotas for minoritised groups fall under positive discrimination in the UK I think and are therefore illegal.
Didn't Labour still have all women shortlists until quite recently for example? And universities have contextual offers (not that I specifically disagree with that but just as an example). I'm sure there are many more examples.

Anyway I think we do agree on this, that DEI can be done well or done badly. It's been done badly enough and for long enough to have damaged its brand entirely among a large proportion of the population. I think we've made some good progress as a society with supporting people with disabilities and towards tackling economic disadvantage (still a way to go on those) but where DEI tries to cover race, it's been done badly on the whole and divisively. Because being non-white is very much not equivalent to being poor or disabled, but DEI tries to treat them with analogous strategies.

That's my opinion but I think many would agree

You don’t interpret. You learn, and practise. dEI is a discipline, a profession. You don’t just decide what you think it is yourself.

It really is that. It depends on how you interpret it. If it wasn’t about that, then there wouldn’t be a need for it in the first place.

Are we talking about the UK or USA because I know in the US they were actively discriminating based on race for university placements. If you were Asian you needed a much higher score to be accepted. Maybe university is different but still when people hear things like that they get annoyed.
Also there have been quotas for jobs and while the guidelines are still they need to hire the best candidate I’m not sure how that works in practice as there will obviously be pressure if you’re not near the quota.
It sounds a nice idea to help everyone out to level the playing field but it also sounds a bit crude and easy to get wrong. People are more than their characteristics. All kinds of other factors can influence how a person does in life like their upbringing and events in their life.

Representation is also the reason why there is a push to make sure healthcare staff are diverse. This is especially important in mental health, because having staff who understand how the details of someone's ethnicity can impact on the presentation of their illness has a positive impact on health outcomes for those patients.

All the research suggests that companies which actively promote representation in their workforce are more productive and more profitable. Ultimately it's about money and results. But because it means that white male candidates no longer automatically get the job, people scream about it. Losing one's privileged position does not mean one is oppressed.

Another rare example where positive discrimination really did happen was post apartheid South Africa.

Black people, who had been undereducated and excluded from professional or powerful jobs were simply inserted into them. How else would they ever get the opportunity? The black man who had no education and grew up in white mans house as the housekeepers son was never going to be a “better qualified and experienced” police officer than a white man, was he?

how would you have dealt with that societal problem, if not by positive discrimination?

Why do you think that?!

in my 30 years I can think of one very strong very clear example of this- a sector wide wide sponsored black leadership programme to get black leaders on boards.

why? Despite a highly diverse customer base the boards and leaderships of alll the organisations in the sector were overwhelmingly white. Some of these organisations have 25% black customers.

representation matters. Why are all those white middle aged men on the boards and no one else? Because they’re best at the job? Because they’re the most experienced? Because they’re more qualified? Bull shit. Because racism, because they’re the only ones who got the chance.

that is a rare, but excellent and worthy programme. They expect to get their first - yes first- black Board member in the next 3 years

But that isn't EDI policy - quotas for minoritised groups fall under positive discrimination in the UK I think and are therefore illegal. Positive action on the other hand is legal but not required and is increasingly commerically risky as if you overstep you could get sued.

The gov website actually does a good job of explaining here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/positive-action-in-the-workplace-guidance-for-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace

I think often people are very angry about things they think are happeneing which actually aren't. There is a phrase "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" and often that is what is going on with people who resent EDI initiatives to explore and acknowledge the barriers that groups with protected characteristics face. Basically a lot of people aren't very good at EDI - as I think you said earlier!

DEI gives employment and training opportunities to people based on their race and denies the same opportunities to other races. That is clearly racist, I don’t see how being against it can also be considered racist.

What are you talking about?

In what world are unqualified applicants hired purely because of race? That is not DEI at all. You're falling for the racist propaganda if you actually believe that is happening.

No it’s not. If you think that you’ve misunderstood it, and never had a good exposure to it.

You could argue that having a blind recruitment process in the first place is good DEI practice, and I agree. It's things like quotas that get people resentful

But we’re not talking about employing someone based on their experience or qualifications. Of course if you have someone of colour who is equally capable of doing the job, then that’s fair, and fine. It would then come down to finer details, such as personality. I’m talking about focussing only on the colour of their skin rather than their qualifications, which is what DEI is about.